WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

Hiya all, first post on this forum. Love the 70's and 80's era in particular.

I make Connors no.1 for 1974, 1976 and 1982. I would probably give Ashe the nod for 75 and Borg 77, though that is highly disputed, Vilas having a great year. Borg no.1 78-80, even though Connors had a strong 1978.

Click to expand...

See.The problem many of you have with Connors is that, being one of the most popular and, certainly, most spectacular players ever, he just had 2-3 years where he was really dominant ( 1974,1976,1982/83), but, except for 1974, he didn´t really outgunned his main competition.

In 1978, He won the US Open ( many will say Borg was having serious problems with his hand prior to the final) but got roundly beaten by Borg in any other match they played.He was probably one of the best nº 2 ever, maybe the best nº 2 ever, but didn´t dominate like the best Borg or the best Mc Enroe ( who had far more variety than him)

See.The problem many of you have with Connors is that, being one of the most popular and, certainly, most spectacular players ever, he just had 2-3 years where he was really dominant ( 1974,1976,1982/83), but, except for 1974, he didn´t really outgunned his main competition.

In 1978, He won the US Open ( many will say Borg was having serious problems with his hand prior to the final) but got roundly beaten by Borg in any other match they played.He was probably one of the best nº 2 ever, maybe the best nº 2 ever, but didn´t dominate like the best Borg or the best Mc Enroe ( who had far more variety than him)

Click to expand...

Kiki,

Connors actually was very dominant in 1977, 1978 and 1979. According to the Collins Encyclopedia for example he was 70-11 in 1977 and 84-7 in 1978. It's just that some were considered more dominant in those years, like Borg and Vilas in 1977 and Borg in 1978.

Quote from the Collins Encyclopedia-But even though World Tennis declared him (Vilas) No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg, who, top-seeded, defaultd to Dick Stockton, 3-6, 6-4, 1-0, in the fourth round of the US Open with a shoulder injury. The 21 year old Swede had the best winning percentage for the season--.920, on a record of 81-7. He won 13 of the 20 tournaments he played. Including the Masters--played in 1978, but considered the climax of the 1977 season---Borg was 3-0 over Vilas (two victories in the spring, the third in the semi of the Masters (6-3 6-3), and 2-1 over Connors, who beat him in the Masters final, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4, before a crowd of 17,150 at Madison Square Garden.

Connors actually was very dominant in 1977, 1978 and 1979. According to the Collins Encyclopedia for example he was 70-11 in 1977 and 84-7 in 1978. It's just that some were considered more dominant in those years, like Borg and Vilas in 1977 and Borg in 1978.

See.The problem many of you have with Connors is that, being one of the most popular and, certainly, most spectacular players ever, he just had 2-3 years where he was really dominant ( 1974,1976,1982/83), but, except for 1974, he didn´t really outgunned his main competition.

In 1978, He won the US Open ( many will say Borg was having serious problems with his hand prior to the final) but got roundly beaten by Borg in any other match they played.He was probably one of the best nº 2 ever, maybe the best nº 2 ever, but didn´t dominate like the best Borg or the best Mc Enroe ( who had far more variety than him)

Click to expand...

Oh sure. I liked Connors and McEnroe, but Borg was amazing. I always give him his due. I make him number no.1 for 1977 over Vilas and no.1 for 78 over Connors. Jimbo got beat in a lot of Slam finals, didn't win big titles year after year like Borg. Mac had more weapons than Jimmy.
Connors was better overall than Borg in 76 though, I believe. Won more titles, better win-loss record and had the 3-0 lead in head to head meetings. What a career Connors had though. The older you get, the more you realize it.

Vilas is number 1 for 1977 because of his sheer activity, and the fact that he won 2 of the 5 majors that year, and runner-up in another. There's just no way that Vilas isn't number 1 in 1977.

Click to expand...

I agree. This is an evidence. Like said "World tennis" in 1977. There is several forums here where about this question. A big majority is agree to say Vilas is n°1. But, mysteriously, you can find some people who think that it's Borg. Maybe they don't like Vilas, and they find very poor arguments to say that Borg was the number one.

Vilas is number 1 for 1977 because of his sheer activity, and the fact that he won 2 of the 5 majors that year, and runner-up in another. There's just no way that Vilas isn't number 1 in 1977.

Click to expand...

I would say 2 of 3 majors rather than 2 of 5. The Australian really was not on a par with the others as far as attendance, and the Masters, while it was at least the 4th most important tournament, was not in the same category either, if only because of format. An 8-man draw with best of 3 matches is by definition not a major (“slam,” whatever), at least to me.

A big problem is that in all these discussions there seems to be a constant and often unconscious going back and forth between trying to adopt the perspective of the time under discussion (assuming we could know exactly what that perspective was) and replacing it in favor of current standards, with no clear criteria for this constant switching of perspectives. The Australian in particular seems to undergo major changes in status depending on individual years. Was it or was it not an important tournament in that decade? And how important was it exactly in relation to other tournaments? What was it comparable to at the time? Judging by player’s attendance, one has to suspect it could not have been too important. On the other hand, because of the majestic status of Australia as a cradle of modern tennis, it could be that the AO retained a certain old prestige or cachet that was not present in other secondary tournaments with better attendance. I just don’t know. And I know even less how to evaluate and measure those things.

If one adopts the criteria that each tournament's weight is never static, but always strictly established by the quality of the field attending it, then a dispassionate and consistent measuring tool for such quality would need to be ruthlessly applied accross the board for all years, and let the chips fall where they may. But no such tools exist, and so the evaluations and opinions tend to get anecdotal, highly vulnerable to very selective subjectivity and personal preferences. Not even the complete draws of most secondary tournaments are easily available. Judgment is often made based on the presence or absence of a few arbitrarily selected players. It seems to me that almost the entire second half of the seventies could be subject to great uncertainty, as well as various years in the 80s and even 90s. But I do agree that, at least on first impression, Vilas seems to me the strongest candidate for the number one position / player of the year or whatever title one wants to give it in 1977.

Oh sure. I liked Connors and McEnroe, but Borg was amazing. I always give him his due. I make him number no.1 for 1977 over Vilas and no.1 for 78 over Connors. Jimbo got beat in a lot of Slam finals, didn't win big titles year after year like Borg. Mac had more weapons than Jimmy.
Connors was better overall than Borg in 76 though, I believe. Won more titles, better win-loss record and had the 3-0 lead in head to head meetings. What a career Connors had though. The older you get, the more you realize it.

Click to expand...

Connors had a very strong '78, even tho' Borg was beginning to get the better of him. Bjorn was pretty amazing, though one could argue that Jimmy had a more impressive career over a 20yr span. He faced off against nearly 4 generations of players at one time or another. Still, nothing like watching Bjorn hit that ball...even better yet was watching him and Connors go at it, just amazing stuff. John was a completely different player, amazing and entertaining in his own right.

Oh sure. I liked Connors and McEnroe, but Borg was amazing. I always give him his due. I make him number no.1 for 1977 over Vilas and no.1 for 78 over Connors. Jimbo got beat in a lot of Slam finals, didn't win big titles year after year like Borg. Mac had more weapons than Jimmy.
Connors was better overall than Borg in 76 though, I believe. Won more titles, better win-loss record and had the 3-0 lead in head to head meetings. What a career Connors had though. The older you get, the more you realize it.

Subsequently to this tread, I was thinking that there were so many competitive years in the 1970´s...I pick 2 years that represent the 2 tnnis generations that dominated te decade and gave tennis such a big boost with their unmatched class.

Connors had a very strong '78, even tho' Borg was beginning to get the better of him. Bjorn was pretty amazing, though one could argue that Jimmy had a more impressive career over a 20yr span. He faced off against nearly 4 generations of players at one time or another. Still, nothing like watching Bjorn hit that ball...even better yet was watching him and Connors go at it, just amazing stuff. John was a completely different player, amazing and entertaining in his own right.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree. I was a Connors and McEnroe fan, always wanted them to beat Bjorn, but I try to be objective. Connors career in many ways is greater than Borg's I think and 1978 was one of Jimmy's best, won about 10 titles I think, it's just that Borg won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Yeah, after 1978, Borg had Jimmy's number every time until he quit the tour. But Jimmy got him in those exos in 82 and 83!

Vilas had an amazing 1977, it's just that 0-3 head to head record against Borg that makes me give the nod to Bjorn. If Vilas wins just one, I probably give him the no1 ranking, but he didn't. Borg had a very good 1977 too.
I remember the annual yearbook covering 1976. They gave Connors no.1 for the year, he won 12 official tourneys, I believe, more than Borg, including a Philadelphia straight sets thumping of Borg in the final, and he also dominated the US clay season that summer, winning Washington, North Conway, Indianapolis, and then the US Open, beating Borg in a 4 set final of course. One slam each for 1976, but 3-0 head to head Connors Philadelphia, Palm Springs and US Open. Different surfaces too.

Quote from the Collins Encyclopedia-But even though World Tennis declared him (Vilas) No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg, who, top-seeded, defaultd to Dick Stockton, 3-6, 6-4, 1-0, in the fourth round of the US Open with a shoulder injury. The 21 year old Swede had the best winning percentage for the season--.920, on a record of 81-7. He won 13 of the 20 tournaments he played. Including the Masters--played in 1978, but considered the climax of the 1977 season---Borg was 3-0 over Vilas (two victories in the spring, the third in the semi of the Masters (6-3 6-3), and 2-1 over Connors, who beat him in the Masters final, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4, before a crowd of 17,150 at Madison Square Garden.

Click to expand...

'77 was really a very strange season when you look at it carefully. Connors did not win a GS, but was in two of the finals, won the masters and had a solid record. But, I kind of lean towards Vilas for that year as well.

Sorry, but rankings don't go by head-to-heads, but by results and activity. Vilas blows them all out of the water in 1977 on results and activity. And how can anyone suggest that Connors didn't have the best 1976?

Yes I agree. I was a Connors and McEnroe fan, always wanted them to beat Bjorn, but I try to be objective. Connors career in many ways is greater than Borg's I think and 1978 was one of Jimmy's best, won about 10 titles I think, it's just that Borg won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Yeah, after 1978, Borg had Jimmy's number every time until he quit the tour. But Jimmy got him in those exos in 82 and 83!

Click to expand...

Borg really lost something when he left the tour; not so much physically, maybe mentally. Jimmy was sharper in '82 and '83, I think because he was playing regularly against Mac and the like. Still, Bjorn was awfully good. I always found their seniors tour matches fascinating...it did show how much sharper Connors still was vs. Bjorn, because he never really stopped playing ATP level matches until 1993 or so. To be fair, Bjorn really did step up his game after a few one sided losses to Jimmy

Sorry, but rankings don't go by head-to-heads, but by results and activity. Vilas blows them all out of the water in 1977 on results and activity. And how can anyone suggest that Connors didn't have the best 1976?

Click to expand...

I don't see it either; in '76 Connors was the most dominant with a very critical win over a key opponent on that opponent's best surface.

I also think you can support Connors #1 ranking in '78 as well. He won 10 titles and vs. Borg, he was 1-2 (and he also won an exo). He did not compete at the French (really a shame). After that, Bjorn just got the best of him thru 1981, despite some close ones. If Wiki is correct, Bjorn had 9 titles overall in '78. Very tight, really.

I don't see it either; in '76 Connors was the most dominant with a very critical win over a key opponent on that opponent's best surface.

I also think you can support Connors #1 ranking in '78 as well. He won 10 titles and vs. Borg, he was 1-2 (and he also won an exo). He did not compete at the French (really a shame). After that, Bjorn just got the best of him thru 1981, despite some close ones. If Wiki is correct, Bjorn had 9 titles overall in '78. Very tight, really.

Click to expand...

I believe Borg won a number of titles more than nine. Borg to me was clearly number one in 1978.

I believe Borg won a number of titles more than nine. Borg to me was clearly number one in 1978.

Click to expand...

Borg won 9 titles in 1978 (2 majors), unless we're counting invitationals and exhibitions. Connors won 11 titles in 1978 (1 major), if we're counting the January 1978 Masters. Take your pick, really. Both had brilliant years in 1978. Connors did what he said he'd do when he talked about following Borg to the ends of the Earth to stop any calendar year Grand Slam being achieved by Borg.

I believe Borg won a number of titles more than nine. Borg to me was clearly number one in 1978.

Click to expand...

You certain you can add to Borg's total these non-ATP tournaments (which were proper tournaments not just one night stands) - the Suntory Cup in Japan (where he beat Connors in the final 6-1 6-2) and also the Antwerp European Tennis Championships.

If you take into account all of the non-ATP tournaments (including the two mentioned above) you could add another 9 tournaments to Borg's total that year. (Though they may have been of varying depth and quality - though he met either Vitas Gerulaitis, Jimmy Connors or Guillermo Vilas in 7 of the 9 finals).

This is what I mean. Everyone says, don't go by H2H, go by results. But what is a H2H, if it's not a result?

Click to expand...

I'd prefer the term achievement. I don't think the best player in a particular year should be classed as number 1. Instead the player who achieved the most (in terms of tournaments won, finals reached, weighted according to the prestige of the tournaments). 1977 is a clear example of this. Some people view Borg as the better player that year (and I would agree), but for whatever reason he didn't achieve what Vilas achieved that year. Hence, Vilas should be given the number 1 nod.

Now it simply has to be that way. Otherwise lazy players (not saying Borg was this) could always say, "well ... if I entered that tournament I would have won it". The reply they deserve is "Well, you didn't so, whatever you say doesn't count!"

I don't see it either; in '76 Connors was the most dominant with a very critical win over a key opponent on that opponent's best surface.

I also think you can support Connors #1 ranking in '78 as well. He won 10 titles and vs. Borg, he was 1-2 (and he also won an exo). He did not compete at the French (really a shame). After that, Bjorn just got the best of him thru 1981, despite some close ones. If Wiki is correct, Bjorn had 9 titles overall in '78. Very tight, really.

Click to expand...

Agreed very much on '76, but the vote for Connors in '78 is one I've never understood (there was one authority that voted for Connors, can't recall who). I can't find where Connors would get an edge.

In overall titles Connors leads Borg 10-9. In H2H he trails 1-2. Really not much difference so far. But he trails Borg 1-2 in Slams and that's huge. And though each man won a similar number of titles overall, Borg's record against Top Ten players as a whole was 21-2 compared to Connors' 14-3.

Connors had a big victory in Philadelphia, but Borg had one in Rome. Which stills leaves Roland Garros separating them -- and that's just looking at titles, even before looking at H2H against each other and against the overall field.

But I wonder what role the January '78 Masters played in the votes at the end of the year. I think most votes must have come in by late December, before the season concluded at the Masters (which McEnroe won). So perhaps looking at the previous twelve months, the January '78 Masters was included, simply out of necessity.

If that's true (maybe someone here can shed light on how the votes were done), that would give Connors a boost, and it would tie up the H2H at 2 wins a piece. But I wouldn't consider the Masters to be equal with the French.

So I can't think of a category in which Connors' has a significant lead, but there are two categories (Slam titles, and H2H against the overall field) in which he's clearly behind.

Then there are the non-sanctioned events (Borg leading Connors 9 to 3 in titles), but that's a whole other discussion.

I'd prefer the term achievement. I don't think the best player in a particular year should be classed as number 1. Instead the player who achieved the most (in terms of tournaments won, finals reached, weighted according to the prestige of the tournaments). 1977 is a clear example of this. Some people view Borg as the better player that year (and I would agree), but for whatever reason he didn't achieve what Vilas achieved that year. Hence, Vilas should be given the number 1 nod.

Now it simply has to be that way. Otherwise lazy players (not saying Borg was this) could always say, "well ... if I entered that tournament I would have won it". The reply they deserve is "Well, you didn't so, whatever you say doesn't count!"

So in 1977 - Borg the better player but Vilas the clear number 1.

Click to expand...

I don't mind the term achievement at all. But the problem is that achievements are certainly not exclusive of H2H. It's a great achievement, for example, to go 6-1 against a top-ranked rival. It's a sterling achievement to go 20-2 against the field as a whole (or to collect more Top Ten "scalps," which is another way that we sometimes measure this achievement).

It's a great achievement, of another kind, to defeat a great clay-courter on his own turf.

You're saying to measure achievement by number of titles and prestige, and that's fine. But if a player wins a tournament, his achievement wasn't just in meeting the pressure at a prestigious event. It was also part of his achievement to master the surface they were playing on (and obviously that's a question a skill). It's also a part of his achievement to come out on top in a field full of Top Ten players -- compared maybe to another event where that was not true. That is, in fact, one way that we measure prestige: by counting the number of top-ranked players in the draw. But if we're counting such things as ranking then we're dealing with questions of skill -- because as a matter of course it takes more skill to defeat the #1 player in the world than it does to defeat #50.

These concepts are inevitably all related, and I can't see how you would separate them fully.

Of course I agree 100% with your scenario of the lazy player. If we're just talking about pure speculation, then I could say that Marat Safin, on his best day, was a greater player than anyone who was named #1 from 2001 right up until 2009 (when Safin retired) -- and in that way I could strip away the #1 title from all those players. And that would be a gross injustice.

But I am not talking about speculating. H2H between two players is an actual result (or achievement). H2H against the overall field is a concrete, measurable result. Titles on a surface is another measurable result.

That's why I think this false dichotomy gets to be troublesome, because if you put "results" in one column and you put H2H (or "better player") in the other column, and you say that the two should never mix -- then it gives the impression that the one column is all about results, about concrete events, while the second category is all about speculating. But it's not. Better player can be measured in actual results: in number of titles, in H2H, in Top Ten scalps, in performance on a surface, etc. With any one of those things we're talking about real achievements, not imaginary ones.

The January 1978 Masters was won by Jimmy Connors. People didn't know which was from what year.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it was won by Connors, and that would give him a boost, if it was considered when the votes for '78 were cast. We don't know if the Masters was counted that way, but when December '78 arrived, the traditional thing was for people to vote on the player of the year. Votes had always been cast before the end of the calendar year, until the Masters was moved to January '78. Then for the first time the tennis season (like the American football season) extended into January.

So people voting for player of the year would probably cast votes in December (at least provisional votes). I know that the magazines which voted for Borg as player of the year in '77 did so in December, even before the Masters in January.

So in December '78, how did the various people casting votes look at the season? I'm suggesting that if one of them decided to go all the way back to January 1st, as a way to judge 12 months of tennis, then Connors would get a boost, because of course he won the January '78 Masters.

But that's just an idea I'm throwing out there. I don't know that it was done that way.

However, when we divide up the tennis seasons, we have to consider the January Masters as the end of last season (which is what it was officially). If we consider it the start of the new season, then the '77 season has no Masters at all, while the '86 season has to be stuffed with two Masters championships.

I know that some people expressed confusion about the January Masters, but I don't know of anyone who explicitly agreed that the '77 season had no Masters, or who explicitly regarded the '86 season as having two Masters.

I don't mind the term achievement at all. But the problem is that achievements are certainly not exclusive of H2H. It's a great achievement, for example, to go 6-1 against a top-ranked rival. It's a sterling achievement to go 20-2 against the field as a whole (or to collect more Top Ten "scalps," which is another way that we sometimes measure this achievement).

It's a great achievement, of another kind, to defeat a great clay-courter on his own turf.

You're saying to measure achievement by number of titles and prestige, and that's fine. But if a player wins a tournament, his achievement wasn't just in meeting the pressure at a prestigious event. It was also part of his achievement to master the surface they were playing on (and obviously that's a question a skill). It's also a part of his achievement to come out on top in a field full of Top Ten players -- compared maybe to another event where that was not true. That is, in fact, one way that we measure prestige: by counting the number of top-ranked players in the draw. But if we're counting such things as ranking then we're dealing with questions of skill -- because as a matter of course it takes more skill to defeat the #1 player in the world than it does to defeat #50.

These concepts are inevitably all related, and I can't see how you would separate them fully.

Of course I agree 100% with your scenario of the lazy player. If we're just talking about pure speculation, then I could say that Marat Safin, on his best day, was a greater player than anyone who was named #1 from 2001 right up until 2009 (when Safin retired) -- and in that way I could strip away the #1 title from all those players. And that would be a gross injustice.

But I am not talking about speculating. H2H between two players is an actual result (or achievement). H2H against the overall field is a concrete, measurable result. Titles on a surface is another measurable result.

That's why I think this false dichotomy gets to be troublesome, because if you put "results" in one column and you put H2H (or "better player") in the other column, and you say that the two should never mix -- then it gives the impression that the one column is all about results, about concrete events, while the second category is all about speculating. But it's not. Better player can be measured in actual results: in number of titles, in H2H, in Top Ten scalps, in performance on a surface, etc. With any one of those things we're talking about real achievements, not imaginary ones.

Click to expand...

I think the H2H could be allowed into consideration only as a last resort tiebreaker in the case of a clear tie in the other achievements, mainly titles. Nadal-Federer is an example of a h2h inclined clearly to one side from 2005 onward, but never brought into consideration (and rightly so) because there was never any need for it. So the entire thing here hinges on determining whether by tournament performance alone there really exists a clear tie between Vilas and Borg that can only be broken by the h2h. I just don't think the tie is there. Had Borg won the Masters, then I could maybe see the need for a tiebreaker like the h2h. But Vilas won 2 majors and Borg 1. Now, do all the secondary tournaments really make up for that difference, especially considering how much Vilas played and won that year? I really don't think so, which means the H2H should remain outside the measurement until the measuring of all other achievements is exhausted, including, if need be, the winning streak and the amount of tennis played by Vilas that year.

I think the H2H could be allowed into consideration only as a last resort tiebreaker in the case of a clear tie in the other achievements, mainly titles. Nadal-Federer is an example of a h2h inclined clearly to one side from 2005 onward, but never brought into consideration (and rightly so) because there was never any need for it. So the entire thing here hinges on determining whether by tournament performance alone there really exists a clear tie between Vilas and Borg that can only be broken by the h2h. I just don't think the tie is there. Had Borg won the Masters, then I could maybe see the need for a tiebreaker like the h2h. But Vilas won 2 majors and Borg 1. Now, do all the secondary tournaments really make up for that difference, especially considering how much Vilas played and won that year? I really don't think so, which means the H2H should remain outside the measurement until the measuring of all other achievements is exhausted, including, if need be, the winning streak and the amount of tennis played by Vilas that year.

Click to expand...

Certainly in those years, Federer was so far ahead of Nadal in other things (a 3-1 lead in Slams, most prominently) that H2H does not put Nadal in top place. But I wouldn't say that H2H was not brought into consideration -- or that it shouldn't be allowed to be brought into consideration. For whatever reason, sometimes H2H gets minimized these days to the point where it seems like it's being placed into another room, and referred to almost as an "intangible" that should be brought into the main room only if needed.

But H2H is in the main room, with all the other stats and achievements. It did count for something in those Federer/Nadal years. What exactly it counted for is another discussion, but my point here is, it counted. It carried some weight. But its weight could not have closed a gap of 3-1 in Slams and all the rest.

H2H did carry a lot of weight if you go back in history. Urban has pointed out that several decades ago, it was not enough to win a lot of matches, you had to knock out the reigning champ to be considered king. He was talking about a time before the Open Era, but it seems to me that in the 70s, H2H did sometimes carry a lot of weight -- maybe more than we're used to seeing now.

Some felt in '76 that Connors' 3-0 record over Borg was a significant achievement and a big factor in placing him as #1. In '77 Tennis Magazine (France) voted for Borg largely for winning Wimbledon and for his 3-0 record against Vilas.

There is a tradition in tennis that values H2H meetings between the top players, which is why I'm sometimes mystified when people seem to argue that H2H plays no part in judging the player of the year.

Even today, we all pay far more attention when Nadal meets Federer, than when Sela plays Isner. It's not merely because we like the first two players and are fans of them, but because that meeting really is more relevant to the question of who the top player is. That match can't just be subsumed into all the other stats, where it just becomes another number in the win/loss record.

Now if someone tells me that the H2H in '77 is not enough for Borg to catch Vilas, I can respect that position. As long as the H2H is not referred to as if it was not a result.

I also insist that the surfaces be taken into account. To me this is something very basic. When you look at a player's titles per year at the ATP site, you see the name of the tournaments, and the surfaces. It's a basic element in how we count up titles in a player's resume.

Surface is not necessarily a crucial factor every year, but it is in a year like '77. For me the one thing I cannot get away from is that the bulk of Vilas' activity, and titles, occurred on clay. And if part of the achievement of winning a tournament is mastering the court surface enough to bring home the trophy (how can that not be considered part of the achievement?), then breaking down titles by surface has some importance. I understand that to some fans it's not so important -- but it's definitely not irrelevant. If a player dominates the field on one surface, it is less an achievement than dominating the field on all surfaces.

One example of this thinking is in '83 when Sports Illustrated noted that Wilander was the only player, in that year, to win titles on four surfaces (although Mac did too, according to the ATP). It was not a decisive factor for SI, but they considered it a factor.

Certainly in those years, Federer was so far ahead of Nadal in other things (a 3-1 lead in Slams, most prominently) that H2H does not put Nadal in top place. But I wouldn't say that H2H was not brought into consideration -- or that it shouldn't be allowed to be brought into consideration. For whatever reason, sometimes H2H gets minimized these days to the point where it seems like it's being placed into another room, and referred to almost as an "intangible" that should be brought into the main room only if needed.

But H2H is in the main room, with all the other stats and achievements. It did count for something in those Federer/Nadal years. What exactly it counted for is another discussion, but my point here is, it counted. It carried some weight. But its weight could not have closed a gap of 3-1 in Slams and all the rest.

H2H did carry a lot of weight if you go back in history. Urban has pointed out that several decades ago, it was not enough to win a lot of matches, you had to knock out the reigning champ to be considered king. He was talking about a time before the Open Era, but it seems to me that in the 70s, H2H did sometimes carry a lot of weight -- maybe more than we're used to seeing now.

Some felt in '76 that Connors' 3-0 record over Borg was a significant achievement and a big factor in placing him as #1. In '77 Lance Tingay voted for Borg largely for winning Wimbledon and for his 3-0 record against Vilas.

There is a tradition in tennis that values H2H meetings between the top players, which is why I'm sometimes mystified when people seem to argue that H2H plays no part in judging the player of the year.

Even today, we all pay far more attention when Nadal meets Federer, than when Sela plays Isner. It's not merely because we like the first two players and are fans of them, but because that meeting really is more relevant to the question of who the top player is. That match can't just be subsumed into all the other stats, where it just becomes another number in the win/loss record.

Now if someone tells me that the H2H in '77 is not enough for Borg to catch Vilas, I can respect that position. As long as the H2H is not referred to as if it was not a result.

I also insist that the surfaces be taken into account. To me this is something very basic. When you look at a player's titles per year at the ATP site, you see the name of the tournaments, and the surfaces. It's a basic element in how we count up titles in a player's resume.

Surface is not necessarily a crucial factor every year, but it is in a year like '77. For me the one thing I cannot get away from is that the bulk of Vilas' activity, and titles, occurred on clay. And if part of the achievement of winning a tournament is mastering the court surface enough to bring home the trophy (how can that not be considered part of the achievement?), then breaking down titles by surface has some importance. I understand that to some fans it's not so important -- but it's definitely not irrelevant. If a player dominates the field on one surface, it is less an achievement than dominating the field on all surfaces.

One example of this thinking is in '83 when Sports Illustrated noted that Wilander was the only player, in that year, to win titles on four surfaces (although Mac did too, according to the ATP). It was not a decisive factor for SI, but they considered it a factor.

Click to expand...

I suppose the use of the h2h as a relevant factor in the overall mix of things to determine the number one player each year has been tapering off since then and pretty much disappeared, which is probably why I am so very reluctant to allow it as a relevant factor before other considerations have been exhausted. That's what causes major differences in basic criteria, and I don’t think we will agree on this one, but differences in basic criteria is precisely what allows fun discussions.

I think, in retrospect we mainly think along the modern day lines. Today we have a computer ranking, which is widely accepted. So we don't need to discuss other criteria and factors for different rankings. And we have a structured schedule, so all the players play mainly the same say 12-14 big events. So the hth is somewhat mirrored in the points race. Of course, for ranking discussion even in the post 1990 era you can make arguments for Rafter in 1998 (when Tennis called him player of the year, including DC results), Sampras in 1999 or Federer in 2003. But the factual computer ranking overshadows all other arguments, leaving less room for other factors. In those special cases mentioned, the hth comes into consideration. And - as Krosero wrote - it makes even more weight, of no structured schedule nor a widely accepted computer ranking exists, and rankings are made by writers on a subjective basis. In the 70s, top players often played different circuits (WCT and Grand Prix), and in some years the top candidates didn't met too often. So the hth gives some kind of real comparison.

This is what I mean. Everyone says, don't go by H2H, go by results. But what is a H2H, if it's not a result?

Click to expand...

What Muster is referring to is that h2h is not a result taken into consideration by any ranking systems past or present. H2H has never yielded any points in the rankings. Like many other results you can think of as having some relevance (record against top 10, top 20, match winning percentage, game winning percentage, whatever) this one was not included in the ranking systems, though sometimes it may have been considered along with other factors at the end of the year if the result was unclear to give the award.

As I’ve mentioned several times, we are always moving back and forth between respect for some of the criteria used at a given time (and justifying this respect by saying: That’s just how it was done then), and replacing other factors with our own criteria or with current criteria. Thus some may say that Wimbledon was not properly weighted in the points assigned to each tournament. Others may claim the USO was not properly weighted, or the French or some other tournament (I have no idea how many points they assigned) and proceed to adjust the weighting according to how they feel things should have been done. On the other hand, when it comes to head to head or other considerations, their use is justified on the grounds they were deemed more relevant back then. So the "wisdom of the past" is simultaneously respected and dismissed according to the preferences of each analyst from the present. It seems to me if we were to be fair and consistent, we would either always accept the ranking criteria of the past and the weighting assigned to tournaments, or completely replace it by something akin to the present. Instead, what’s always done is some kind of hybrid solution which allows infinite malleability.

Now, in the early computer ranking system wins over top players were gratified with special points. So the hth between top players got some extra points in the ranking. I don't know exactly at the moment, when the ATP ended this bonus points system.

This is what I mean. Everyone says, don't go by H2H, go by results. But what is a H2H, if it's not a result?

Click to expand...

it is a result but not THE RESULT.I´d rather win 5 Wimblies and lose 150 times to one guy than beat this gay and win 3, say.Titles count for BEST YEAR and HtoH for BEST PLAYER (Provided the winning player has also comparable titles)

I'd prefer the term achievement. I don't think the best player in a particular year should be classed as number 1. Instead the player who achieved the most (in terms of tournaments won, finals reached, weighted according to the prestige of the tournaments). 1977 is a clear example of this. Some people view Borg as the better player that year (and I would agree), but for whatever reason he didn't achieve what Vilas achieved that year. Hence, Vilas should be given the number 1 nod.

Now it simply has to be that way. Otherwise lazy players (not saying Borg was this) could always say, "well ... if I entered that tournament I would have won it". The reply they deserve is "Well, you didn't so, whatever you say doesn't count!"

So in 1977 - Borg the better player but Vilas the clear number 1.

Click to expand...

Agreed.Like in the 73 Wimbledon tournament, Kodes was not a better player than some of the guys that didn´t attend it but won it and, because it will never be proven the other way, he has all the rights to being Wimbledon champion ( after all, he got to the finals of the other grass court event, the USO, THAT PROVES CRITICS WRONG)

Exactly, it was won by Connors, and that would give him a boost, if it was considered when the votes for '78 were cast. We don't know if the Masters was counted that way, but when December '78 arrived, the traditional thing was for people to vote on the player of the year. Votes had always been cast before the end of the calendar year, until the Masters was moved to January '78. Then for the first time the tennis season (like the American football season) extended into January.

So people voting for player of the year would probably cast votes in December (at least provisional votes). I know that the magazines which voted for Borg as player of the year in '77 did so in December, even before the Masters in January.

So in December '78, how did the various people casting votes look at the season? I'm suggesting that if one of them decided to go all the way back to January 1st, as a way to judge 12 months of tennis, then Connors would get a boost, because of course he won the January '78 Masters.

But that's just an idea I'm throwing out there. I don't know that it was done that way.

However, when we divide up the tennis seasons, we have to consider the January Masters as the end of last season (which is what it was officially). If we consider it the start of the new season, then the '77 season has no Masters at all, while the '86 season has to be stuffed with two Masters championships.

I know that some people expressed confusion about the January Masters, but I don't know of anyone who explicitly agreed that the '77 season had no Masters, or who explicitly regarded the '86 season as having two Masters.

Click to expand...

If you consider the Masters as season ending, then every year ( circuit year ) has 1 masters.The circuit, therefore, runs from Masters to Masters ( much like the NFL)

As for the AO, there was none in 1987 but 2 in 1977.I have a very simplistic and reasonable solution.The 1977 Ao won by Gerulaitis belongs to 1978 , Vilas wins 1979 (Marks ) and 1980 (Sadri) and so on...thus, Edberg´s second AO would fell in 1987, and from 1988 onwards, the AO would go by the regular year.

Which, among other things, means that 1978 AO was a GS title, and Vitas therefore has his slam title ( otherwise, it wouldn´t make any sense).

I don't see it either; in '76 Connors was the most dominant with a very critical win over a key opponent on that opponent's best surface.

I also think you can support Connors #1 ranking in '78 as well. He won 10 titles and vs. Borg, he was 1-2 (and he also won an exo). He did not compete at the French (really a shame). After that, Bjorn just got the best of him thru 1981, despite some close ones. If Wiki is correct, Bjorn had 9 titles overall in '78. Very tight, really.

Click to expand...

It´s close for 1976.Look at the biggest events: Connors wins FH and Philadelphia, but Borg owns Wimbledon and the WCT Finals.In 1975,Ashe won exactly the very same thing, and no one disputes he was nº 1...plus BORG reached another major final, the US Open...it looks like Borg wins by 2,5 to 1 point if we weighten the value of titles.Even if Borg got beaten by Connors in their 3 encounters, Borg still has the edge ( same for Vilas in 77 or even Ashe in 75)

I'd prefer the term achievement. I don't think the best player in a particular year should be classed as number 1. Instead the player who achieved the most (in terms of tournaments won, finals reached, weighted according to the prestige of the tournaments). 1977 is a clear example of this. Some people view Borg as the better player that year (and I would agree), but for whatever reason he didn't achieve what Vilas achieved that year. Hence, Vilas should be given the number 1 nod.

Now it simply has to be that way. Otherwise lazy players (not saying Borg was this) could always say, "well ... if I entered that tournament I would have won it". The reply they deserve is "Well, you didn't so, whatever you say doesn't count!"

So in 1977 - Borg the better player but Vilas the clear number 1.

Click to expand...

LOL.....I think you hit the nail on the head; the ATP/WCT rankings never counted tourneys/matches not played! Vilas tends to stand apart in '77 when you look at all he did.

Exactly, it was won by Connors, and that would give him a boost, if it was considered when the votes for '78 were cast. We don't know if the Masters was counted that way, but when December '78 arrived, the traditional thing was for people to vote on the player of the year. Votes had always been cast before the end of the calendar year, until the Masters was moved to January '78. Then for the first time the tennis season (like the American football season) extended into January.

So people voting for player of the year would probably cast votes in December (at least provisional votes). I know that the magazines which voted for Borg as player of the year in '77 did so in December, even before the Masters in January.

So in December '78, how did the various people casting votes look at the season? I'm suggesting that if one of them decided to go all the way back to January 1st, as a way to judge 12 months of tennis, then Connors would get a boost, because of course he won the January '78 Masters.

But that's just an idea I'm throwing out there. I don't know that it was done that way.

However, when we divide up the tennis seasons, we have to consider the January Masters as the end of last season (which is what it was officially). If we consider it the start of the new season, then the '77 season has no Masters at all, while the '86 season has to be stuffed with two Masters championships.

I know that some people expressed confusion about the January Masters, but I don't know of anyone who explicitly agreed that the '77 season had no Masters, or who explicitly regarded the '86 season as having two Masters.

Click to expand...

It is quite weird when you think about the Masters; it's a January event but meant to be the capstone of the prior year's season. So Connors won the '77 Masters, but it was in January '78! So, even psychologically, do people "count" that as a result in the current year when voting? Who knows; but you'd tend to say "yes", if someone picked Connors as #1 for '78. I'd say a Masters win is about on par w/an FO win....in the 70's, the Masters was like the 5th slam. Reviewing the results for both Connors and Borg in '78 is pretty impressive; these guys were killing it.

It is quite weird when you think about the Masters; it's a January event but meant to be the capstone of the prior year's season. So Connors won the '77 Masters, but it was in January '78! So, even psychologically, do people "count" that as a result in the current year when voting? Who knows; but you'd tend to say "yes", if someone picked Connors as #1 for '78. I'd say a Masters win is about on par w/an FO win....in the 70's, the Masters was like the 5th slam. Reviewing the results for both Connors and Borg in '78 is pretty impressive; these guys were killing it.

Click to expand...

What season the SUPERBOWL refeers to? former or next? same with Masters...is it so difficult to understand?? geez¡¡¡

What Muster is referring to is that h2h is not a result taken into consideration by any ranking systems past or present. H2H has never yielded any points in the rankings.

Click to expand...

Not exactly true. Quality points were awarded throughout the 80s/90s(you can look up player activity on major winners those years & see that some major winners got a lot more points than other major winners in the same year)

What season the SUPERBOWL refeers to? former or next? same with Masters...is it so difficult to understand??

Click to expand...

McEnroe said after he won 1983 Masters(played in Jan '84), "I don't know what year this is supposed to count for, '83 or '84"
When he lost in the '84 FO final to Lendl, all news reports mentioned his 42-0 start to the year, clearly they were counting it as part of '84, not '83.
And the Masters didn't even count for the ATP rankings back then which made things even more confusing.
Clearly writers voting on 'player of the year' in December weren't counting this event. Tennis magazine's player of the year those years probably couldn't take the masters into account, they had deadlines for publication. Maybe they counted the previous year's instead. God, what a mess tennis used to be.

If you consider the Masters as season ending, then every year ( circuit year ) has 1 masters.The circuit, therefore, runs from Masters to Masters ( much like the NFL)

As for the AO, there was none in 1987 but 2 in 1977.I have a very simplistic and reasonable solution.The 1977 Ao won by Gerulaitis belongs to 1978 , Vilas wins 1979 (Marks ) and 1980 (Sadri) and so on...thus, Edberg´s second AO would fell in 1987, and from 1988 onwards, the AO would go by the regular year.

Which, among other things, means that 1978 AO was a GS title, and Vitas therefore has his slam title ( otherwise, it wouldn´t make any sense).

Click to expand...

The victories of Gerulaitis and Tanner in AO count both for 1977. Vilas won 78 and 79, Teacher 80, Kriek 81 and 82 ...

What season the SUPERBOWL refeers to? former or next? same with Masters...is it so difficult to understand?? geez¡¡¡

Click to expand...

no, not difficult to understand when you directly articulate it....but people's brains work in weird ways...without even knowing it, I am suggesting that some included the '77 Masters as a 1978 event at the end of the year.

McEnroe said after he won 1983 Masters(played in Jan '84), "I don't know what year this is supposed to count for, '83 or '84"
When he lost in the '84 FO final to Lendl, all news reports mentioned his 42-0 start to the year, clearly they were counting it as part of '84, not '83.
And the Masters didn't even count for the ATP rankings back then which made things even more confusing.
Clearly writers voting on 'player of the year' in December weren't counting this event. Tennis magazine's player of the year those years probably couldn't take the masters into account, they had deadlines for publication. Maybe they counted the previous year's instead. God, what a mess tennis used to be.

Click to expand...

I forgot about that; good point! Solution: move the Masters to November! And bring it back to NYC please! I miss it! not to mention the old Virginia Slims event!

Does anyone know why, in late 1977-early 1978, they switched the Australian Open from January to late in the year and the Masters from late in the year to January? Likewise, they were moved back in late 1986-early 1987.

As for the AO, there was none in 1987 but 2 in 1977.I have a very simplistic and reasonable solution.The 1977 Ao won by Gerulaitis belongs to 1978 , Vilas wins 1979 (Marks ) and 1980 (Sadri) and so on...thus, Edberg´s second AO would fell in 1987, and from 1988 onwards, the AO would go by the regular year.

The victories of Gerulaitis and Tanner in AO count both for 1977. Vilas won 78 and 79, Teacher 80, Kriek 81 and 82 ...

Click to expand...

Kiki it's impossible to work it out that way. In '82 the AO was moved to early December, so that the last days of the tournament would no longer spill into the new year. So there's no way to consider the '82 AO (the second AO won by Kriek) to be an '83 tournament. It was the last traditional Slam of the season.

And from '77 onward it was generally considered as the last Slam of the season, even if the finals spilled over past January 1st into the next year. It was still considered the last leg of the Grand Slam, not the first. All those years that Borg went to the USO all the talk was about how he would go down to Australia to finish the Grand Slam in December, if he won the USO.